@emily I think this is going to become a huge topic for a lot of people.
Best posts made by notmyarm
RE: Fake vaccine card or passports - would you use/need it?
RE: WIFE OF VACCINE-INJURED FIREFIGHTER SENDS AN EMOTIONAL THANK YOU TO THE TRUCKERS HEADING TO CANADA
@republic4npower sadly it's only going to get worse.
In Court, Facebook Admits ‘Fact Checks’ Are Pure Opinion (Mercola.com)
-“Fact checks” are nothing but a biased censoring mechanism, and now we have proof of this fact, thanks to a lawsuit brought against Facebook by journalist John Stossel
-In court documents, Facebook admits that fact checks are “statements of opinion” and not factual assertions
-Facebook recently censored a whistleblower report published by The British Medical Journal (BMJ), one of the oldest and most respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, variably labeling the article as “False,” “Partly false” or “Missing context.” Some users reported they could not share the article at all
-The fact check inaccurately referred to The BMJ as a “news blog,” failed to specify any assertions of fact that The BMJ article got wrong, and published the fact check under a URL containing the phrase “hoax-alert”
-The BMJ calls the fact check “inaccurate, incompetent and irresponsible.” In an open letter addressed to Mark Zuckerberg, The BMJ urges Zuckerberg to “act swiftly” to correct the erroneous fact check, review the processes that allowed it to occur in the first place, and “generally to reconsider your investment in and approach to fact checking overall”
We’ve long suspected that fact checking organizations are nothing but a biased censoring mechanism more interested in manipulating opinion than establishing actual facts, but now we have absolute proof, thanks to a lawsuit brought against Facebook by journalist John Stossel.1,2
In 2020, a Facebook fact checker called Science Feedback slapped “False” and “Lacking context” labels on two videos posted by Stossel. The videos featured Stossel’s interviews with experts who discussed the negligible role of climate change in the 2020 California forest fires. While they did not deny climate change is real, they proposed there were other, likely more contributing factors, such as poor forest management.
Why were his videos flagged as misinformation? According to Facebook fact checkers, Stossel was “misleading” people when he claimed that “forest fires are caused by poor forest management, not climate change.” But according to Stossel, he never actually made that claim.
According to Stossel, the labels damaged his reputation as an investigative journalist and resulted in a loss of followers. Interestingly, when Stossel contacted Science Feedback about its fact checks, two reviewers agreed to be interviewed. With regard to the first video that got flagged, they admitted they’d never even watched it. In the case of the second video, a reviewer explained that they “didn’t like [his] tone.” As noted by The New York Post:3
“That is, you can’t write anything about climate change unless you say it’s the worst disaster in the history of humanity and we must spend trillions to fight it.”
“The problem is the omission of contextual information rather than specific ‘facts’ being wrong,” the fact checker told Stossel, who says:4
“What? It’s fine if people don’t like my tone. But Facebook declares my post ‘partly false,’ a term it defines on its website as including ‘factual inaccuracies.’ My video does not contain factual inaccuracies ... I want Facebook to learn that censorship — especially sloppy, malicious censorship, censorship without any meaningful appeal process — is NOT the way to go. The world needs more freedom to discuss things, not less.”
Facebook Claims Fact Checks Are ‘Protected Opinion’
So, Stossel sued for defamation, and this is where it gets good, because to defend Facebook, its lawyers had to at least temporarily resort to telling the truth. In their legal brief, they argue that fact checks are protected under the First Amendment because they are OPINIONS, not assertions of facts! Commenting on the case, climate change blogger Anthony Watts writes:5
“Facebook just blew the ‘fact check’ claim right out of the water in court. In its response to Stossel’s defamation claim, Facebook responds on Page 2, Line 8 in the court document that Facebook cannot be sued for defamation (which is making a false and harmful assertion) because its ‘fact checks’ are mere statements of opinion rather than factual assertions.
Opinions are not subject to defamation claims, while false assertions of fact can be subject to defamation ... So, in a court of law, in a legal filing, Facebook admits that its ‘fact checks’ are not really ‘fact’ checks at all, but merely ‘opinion assertions.’
This strikes me as public relations disaster, and possibly a looming legal disaster for Facebook, PolitiFact, Climate Feedback and other left-leaning entities that engage in biased ‘fact checking.’
Such ‘fact checks’ are now shown to be simply an agenda to suppress free speech and the open discussion of science by disguising liberal media activism as something supposedly factual, noble, neutral, trustworthy, and based on science. It is none of those.”
Facebook Censors The British Medical Journal
Stossel is far from alone in being censored these days. In the video above, he points out other noteworthy experts who have been censored for their opinions and educated stances, such as environmentalist Michael Shellenberger, once hailed by Time Magazine as a “hero of the environment,” statistician and environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg, once declared “one of the most influential people of the 21st century,” and science writer John Tierney.
As Facebook has now admitted in court, these so-called fact checks are nothing more than a declaration of preferred opinion. They’re statements of approved narrative. They have nothing to do with the verification of facts.
Of course, I am no stranger to censorship either, having been falsely labeled as one of the “biggest misinformation agents” on the entire internet when it comes to the COVID jab. In these times of Orwellian Doublespeak, I consider this one of most significant achievements I have ever achieved.
Think about it for a moment. The entire mainstream media has agreed that I am the most influential spreader of the truth about COVID on the internet. Even my friend and major freedom fighter, Bobby Kennedy, was only No. 2. I couldn’t be more delighted with their award. I might even have it inscribed on my tombstone.
Most recently, Facebook even censored The British Medical Journal (BMJ) over an article that highlighted potential problems with Pfizer’s COVID jab trial, and The BMJ is one of the oldest and most respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world!
In early November 2021, The BMJ published a whistleblower report6 that claimed there were serious data integrity issues in the Pfizer COVID jab trial. The article was censored by Facebook and labeled variably as either “False,” “Partly false” or “Missing context.” Some users reported the article could not be shared at all.
The Facebook fact check of The BMJ article was done by Lead Stories, a Facebook contractor. The headline of its “fact check” rebuttal read: “Fact Check: The British Medical Journal Did NOT Reveal Disqualifying and Ignored Reports of Flaws in Pfizer’s COVID-19 Vaccine Trials.”7
‘Inaccurate, Incompetent and Irresponsible’ Fact Checking
In response, The BMJ has slammed the fact check, calling it “inaccurate, incompetent and irresponsible.”8,9,10 In an open letter11 addressed to Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, The BMJ urges Zuckerberg to “act swiftly” to correct the erroneous fact check, review the processes that allowed it to occur in the first place, and “generally to reconsider your investment in and approach to fact checking overall.” As noted by The BMJ in its letter, the Lead Stories’ fact check:12
Inaccurately referred to The BMJ as a “news blog”
Failed to specify any assertions of fact that The BMJ article got wrong
Published the fact check on the Lead Stories’ website under a URL that contains the phrase “hoax-alert”
Lead Stories refused to address the inaccuracies when contacted by The BMJ directly. The BMJ also raises “a wider concern” in its letter:
“We are aware that The BMJ is not the only high quality information provider to have been affected by the incompetence of Meta’s fact checking regime. To give one other example, we would highlight the treatment by Instagram (also owned by Meta) of Cochrane, the international provider of high quality systematic reviews of the medical evidence.
Rather than investing a proportion of Meta’s substantial profits to help ensure the accuracy of medical information shared through social media, you have apparently delegated responsibility to people incompetent in carrying out this crucial task.
Fact checking has been a staple of good journalism for decades. What has happened in this instance should be of concern to anyone who values and relies on sources such as The BMJ.”
Fact Checkers Are as Biased as They Come
When it comes to fact checking, it’s high time everyone understood that fact checks are not done by independent, unbiased parties who are sifting through facts to make sure a given piece is accurate.
As Facebook has now admitted in court, these so-called fact checks are nothing more than a declaration of preferred opinion. They’re statements of approved narrative. They have nothing to do with the verification of facts. As reported by the New York Post:13
“The Post has faced this same gauntlet too many times. In February 2020, we published a column by Steven W. Mosher asking if COVID-19 leaked from the Wuhan Lab. This was labeled ‘false’ by Facebook’s fact-checkers.
Of course, those supposed ‘independent’ scientific reviewers relied on a group of experts who had a vested interest in dismissing that theory — including EcoHealth, which had funded the Wuhan lab.
When Twitter ‘fact checked’ and blocked The Post’s stories about Hunter Biden’s laptop as ‘hacked materials,’ what was the basis? Nothing. It wasn’t hacked; the company’s staff just wanted an excuse. Guess they didn’t like our tone. In both these cases, our ‘fact checks’ were lifted, but only after it no longer mattered.”
The New York Post also points out that “The fact-check industry is funded by liberal moguls such as George Soros, government-funded nonprofits and the tech giants themselves.”14 Science Feedback, for example, received seed funding from Google.15
Journalism’s icon, the Poynter Institute — which runs the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) — also funded Science Feedback to build what Poynter describes as “a database of fact checks and of websites that spread misinformation the most.”
In a round robin of circular funding, IFCN’s revenues come from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Google, Facebook and government entities such as the U.S. Department of State.16 To top it off, Science Feedback’s crowdfunding is run through the University of California, Merced, so they can avoid taxes in the United States.17
Fact Checkers Protect the Technocratic Agenda
One of the primary funders of the fake fact checking industry that The Post failed to mention is the drug industry. NewsGuard and other fact checking organizations are loaded with Big Pharma conflicts of interest, and their bias in favor of the drug industry is undeniable.
Fact checking organizations are also clearly influenced by technocratic organizations such as the World Economic Forum, which is leading the call for a Great Reset. NewsGuard, for example, is partnered with Publicis,18 one of the world’s largest PR companies that has a huge roster of Big Pharma clients, and Publicis in turn is a partner of the World Economic Forum.
NewsGuard also received a large chunk of its startup capital from Publicis. No doubt, Big Pharma and The Great Reset are tightly intertwined and work together toward the same goal, which is nothing less than world domination and the enslavement of the global population under a biomedical police state.
PR Posing as Free Press Has Unleashed Fake News Pandemic
Publicis actually appears to be coordinating the global effort to suppress information that runs counter to the technocratic narrative about COVID-19, its origin, prevention and treatment — suppression and censorship that has been repeatedly aimed at this website specifically.
It is part of an enormous network that includes international drug companies, fact checkers and credibility raters like NewsGuard, Google and other search engines, Microsoft, antivirus software companies like Trend Micro, public libraries, schools, the banking industry, the U.S. State Department and Department of Defense, the World Health Organization and the World Economic Forum.
Mind you, this is not a comprehensive list of links. It’s merely a sampling of entities to give you an idea of the breadth of connections, which when taken together explain how certain views — such as information about COVID-19 and vaccines — can be so effectively suppressed and erased from public discourse.
To understand the power that PR companies such as Publicis wield, you also need to realize that PR has, by and large, replaced the free press. This has had a devastating effect, and I don’t think I’m overstating the matter when I say that it is PR masquerading as news that gave birth to the whole “fake news” phenomenon.
However, in true Orwellian double-speak, these same fake PR-news pushers claim everyone else is peddling fake news. They want us to believe their PR is the truth, even though its typically devoid of data and flies in the face of verifiable facts.
China’s Hidden Influence
In addition to fact checkers doing the bidding of Big Pharma and the technocratic elite, the public is also being deceived and manipulated by Chinese propaganda. In a December 20, 2021, New York Times article,19 Muyi Xiao, Paul Mozur and Gray Beltran details how China manipulates Facebook and Twitter to further its own authoritarian aspirations.
According to Xiao, Mozur and Beltran, China’s government has “unleashed a global online campaign” to bolster its image and suppress accusations of human rights abuses. To that end, it hires companies to flood social media with fake accounts that are then used to advance China’s agenda worldwide.
This includes creating content on demand, identifying and tracking critics that live outside of China, running bot networks to flood social media with tailored propaganda messages to steer discussion and more — strategies referred to as “public opinion management.”
Disturbingly, while the Chinese government has long hunted down dissenting voices inside the country and forced them to recant, they’re now hunting Chinese dissenters worldwide.
Any user who has connections to the mainland can find themselves in a situation where their family members in China are detained or threatened until or unless they delete the offending post or account. People of Chinese descent who live in other countries may also be detained by police if they return to mainland China, based on the opinions they’ve shared online.
China Aims for More Sophisticated Propaganda
According to the documents the trio obtained, the Chinese police are also working on more sophisticated propaganda maneuvers. For example, rather than relying on bot farms and fake troll profiles to create an appearance of public opinion, they’re looking to grow popular accounts that have an organic following, so that these accounts can later be taken over by government to push whatever propaganda is desired at that time.
These are known as “profiles for hire.” As explained in the article, “The deeper engagement lends the fake personas credibility at a time when social media companies are increasingly taking down accounts that seem inauthentic or coordinated.”
Facebook Itself Is an Opinion Management Tool
Of course, Facebook and Twitter lend themselves to this kind of manipulation because they are essentially “public opinion management” tools. Even if they didn’t start out that way (and that’s a big if), they’ve certainly grown into it. There can be no denying that both platforms have been instrumental in censoring information about COVID-19 on behalf of the drug industry and global technocracy.
As reported by The National Pulse,20 email correspondence between Dr. Anthony Fauci and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg reveals Zuckerberg even agreed to send Fauci reports on Facebook users’ sentiments to “facilitate decisions” about COVID-19 lockdowns. An April 8, 2020, email from Zuckerberg reads in part:21
“... If we’re looking at a prolonged period of tightening and loosening shelter restrictions around the country, then if there are aggregate, anonymized data reports that Facebook can generate to facilitate these decisions, for example, we’d be happy to do this ...
We’ve kicked off a symptom survey, which will hopefully give a county-by-county leading indicator of cases to inform public health decisions. If there are other aggregate data resources that you think would be helpful, let me know ...”
As noted by The National Pulse, this is a “stark example” of how Big Tech corporations and government agencies collude and use user data to restrict our freedoms and liberties.22
Government Colludes With Big Tech to Circumvent Constitution
Indeed, aside from this, we’ve also had clear examples of politicians colluding with Big Tech to censor on behalf of the government, in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution. This is why I sued U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
In early September 2021, Warren sent a letter23 to Andy Jassy, chief executive officer of Amazon.com, demanding an “immediate review” of Amazon’s algorithms to weed out books peddling “COVID misinformation.”24,25,26
Warren specifically singled out my book, “The Truth About COVID-19,” co-written with Ronnie Cummins, founder and director of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), as a prime example of “highly-ranked and favorably-tagged books based on falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines and cures” that she wanted banned.
As a government official, it is illegal for her to violate the U.S. Constitution, and pressuring private businesses to do it for her is not a legal workaround. Since she willfully ignored the law, Cummins and I, along with our publisher, Chelsea Green Publishing, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who wrote our foreword, sued Warren,27 both in her official and personal capacities, for violating our First Amendment rights.
The federal lawsuit, in which Warren is listed as the sole defendant, was filed November 8, 2021, in the state of Washington.
‘Fact Checks’ Are Brainwashing Attempts
Is there a fact checking organization you can rely on? The simple and direct answer is no. They all exist for a single purpose — to metaphorically “shout over” anyone whose views differ from the officially sanctioned narrative on a given topic and suppress the truth that interferes with the implementation of their agenda.
It’s like two people trying to have a conversation about something while a third person keeps interjecting, screaming at the top of their lungs “THINK THIS! SAY THIS!”
Who needs that? They’re useless. By reading them and giving them any credence, all you’re doing is filling your head with propaganda and increasing your likelihood of falling into the pervasive mass delusional psychosis we’re seeing all around us. It’s just one big brainwashing attempt. With any amount of luck, Facebook’s court admission that fact checks are mere opinion pieces will end up triggering the fact blockers’ demise.
1 wattsupwiththat.com John Stossel Lawsuit against Meta Platforms (PDF)
2 WND December 10, 2021
3, 13, 14 New York Post December 14, 2021
4 New York Post December 13, 2021
5 wattsupwiththat.com December 9, 2021
6, 11, 12 The BMJ 2021;375:n2635
7, 8 Reclaim the Net December 17, 2021
9 Medscape December 20, 2021
10 ZeroHedge December 20, 2021
15 Science Feedback Partners, Funders & Donors
16 Poynter IFCN Transparency Statement
17 Influence Watch Science Feedback
18 Twitter Publicis Health Media April 27, 2021
19 New York Times December 20, 2021 (Archived)
20, 21, 22 National Pulse December 14, 2021
23 Warren’s letter to Andy Jassy September 7, 2021
24 National Interest September 12, 2021
25 The Guardian September 13, 2021
26 New York Times September 8, 2021
27 Chelsea Green November 8, 2021
Cloth masks may be useless against Omicron
Like many have been saying, masking may offer almost no protection from the virus.
Cloth masks may not protect against omicron, report says
Fake vaccine card or passports - would you use/need it?
I wanted to start off a discussion that a lot of people are thinking about: Fake vaccine cards.
So do you think you will need them? Are they a good idea?
RE: How to Win the War Against Tyranny (Mercola.com)
@nature-girl yes it is. Thanks for posting!
31 reasons I don't want the vaccine
31 reasons why i won't take the vaccine by chananya weissman
The following list was created by Israeli Rabbi Chananya Weissman.
It’s not a vaccine. A vaccine by definition provides immunity to a disease. This does not provide immunity to anything. In a best-case scenario, it merely reduces the chance of getting a severe case of a virus if one catches it. Hence, it is a medical treatment, not a vaccine. I do not want to take a medical treatment for an illness I do not have.
The drug companies, politicians, medical establishment, and media have joined forces to universally refer to this as a vaccine when it is not one, with the intention of manipulating people into feeling safer about undergoing a medical treatment. Because they are being deceitful, I do not trust them, and want nothing to do with their medical treatment.
The presumed benefits of this medical treatment are minimal and would not last long in any case. The establishment acknowledges this, and is already talking about additional shots and ever-increasing numbers of new “vaccines” that would be required on a regular basis. I refuse to turn myself into a chronic patient who receives injections of new pharmaceutical products on a regular basis simply to reduce my chances of getting a severe case of a virus that these injections do not even prevent.
I can reduce my chances of getting a severe case of a virus by strengthening my immune system naturally. In the event I catch a virus, there are vitamins and well-established drugs that have had wonderful results in warding off the illness, without the risks and unknowns of this medical treatment.
The establishment insists that this medical treatment is safe. They cannot possibly know this because the long-term effects are entirely unknown, and will not be known for many years. They may speculate that it is safe, but it is disingenuous for them to make such a claim that cannot possibly be known. Because they are being disingenuous, I do not trust them, and I want no part of their treatment.
The drug companies have zero liability if anything goes wrong, and cannot be sued. Same for the politicians who are pushing this treatment. I will not inject myself with a new, experimental medical device when the people behind it accept no liability or responsibility if something goes wrong. I will not risk my health and my life when they refuse to risk anything.
Israel’s Prime Minister has openly admitted that the Israeli people are the world’s laboratory for this experimental treatment. I am not interested in being a guinea pig or donating my body to science.
Israel agreed to share medical data of its citizens with a foreign drug company as a fundamental part of their agreement to receive this treatment.I never consented for my personal medical data to be shared with any such entity, nor was I even asked. I will not contribute to this sleazy enterprise.
The executives and board members at Pfizer are on record that they have not taken their own treatment, despite all the fanfare and assurances. They are claiming that they would consider it unfair to “cut the line”. This is a preposterous excuse, and it takes an unbelievable amount of chutzpah to even say such a thing. Such a “line” is a figment of their own imagination; if they hogged a couple of injections for themselves no one would cry foul. In addition, billionaires with private jets and private islands are not known for waiting in line until hundreds of millions of peasants all over the world go first to receive anything these billionaires want for themselves.
The establishment media have accepted this preposterous excuse without question or concern. Moreover, they laud Pfizer’s executives for their supposed self-sacrifice in not taking their own experimental treatment until we go first. Since they consider us such fools, I do not trust them, and do not want their new treatment. They can have my place in line. I’ll go to the very back of the line.
Three facts that must be put together:
Bill Gates is touting these vaccines as essential to the survival of the human race.
Bill Gates believes the world has too many people and needs to be “depopulated”.
Bill Gates, perhaps the richest man in the world, has also not been injected. No rush.
Uh, no. I’ll pass on any medical treatments he wants me to take.
The establishment has been entirely one-sided in celebrating this treatment.The politicians and media are urging people to take it as both a moral and civic duty. The benefits of the treatment are being greatly exaggerated, the risks are being ignored, and the unknowns are being brushed aside. Because they are being deceitful and manipulative, I will not gamble my personal wellbeing on their integrity.
There is an intense propaganda campaign for people to take this treatment.Politicians and celebrities are taking selfies of themselves getting injected (perhaps in some cases pretending to get injected), the media is hyping this as the coolest, smartest, most happy and fun thing to do. It is the most widespread marketing campaign in history. This is not at all appropriate for any medical treatment, let alone a brand new one, and it makes me recoil.
The masses are following in tow, posting pictures of themselves getting injected with a drug, feeding the mass peer pressure to do the same. There is something very alarming and sick about this, and I want no part of it. I never took drugs just because “everyone’s doing it” and it’s cool. I’m certainly not going to start now.
Those who raise concerns about this medical treatment are being bullied, slandered, mocked, censored, ostracized, threatened, and fired from their jobs. This includes medical professionals who have science-based concerns about the drug and caregivers who have witnessed people under their charge suffering horrible reactions and death shortly after being injected. When the establishment is purging good people who risk everything simply to raise concerns about a new medical treatment — even if they don’t outright oppose it — I will trust these brave people over the establishment every time. I cannot think of a single similar case in history when truth and morality turned out to be on the side of the establishment.
This is the greatest medical experiment in the history of the human race.
It is purposely not being portrayed as the greatest medical experiment in the history of the human race, and the fact that it is a medical experiment at all is being severely downplayed.
Were they up front with the masses, very few would agree to participate in such an experiment. Manipulating the masses to participate in a medical experiment under false pretenses violates the foundations of medical ethics and democratic law. I will not allow unethical people who engage in such conduct to inject me with anything.
The medical establishment is not informing people about any of this. They have become marketing agents for an experimental drug, serving huge companies and politicians who have made deals with them. This is a direct conflict with their mandate to concern themselves exclusively with the wellbeing of the people under their care. Since the medical establishment has become corrupted, and has become nothing more than a corporate and political tool, I do not trust the experimental drug they want so badly to inject me with.
We are being pressured in various ways to get injected, which violates medical ethics and the foundations of democratic society. The best way to get me not to do something is to pressure me to do it.
The government has sealed their protocol related to the virus and treatments for THIRTY YEARS. This is information that the public has a right to know, and the government has a responsibility to share. What are they covering up? Do they really expect me to believe that everything is kosher about all this, and that they are concerned first and foremost with my health? The last time they did this was with the Yemenite Children Affair. If you’re not familiar with it, look it up. Now they’re pulling the same shtick. They didn’t fool me the first time, and they’re definitely not fooling me now.
The government can share our personal medical data with foreign corporations, but they won’t share their own protocol on the matter with us? I’m out.
The establishment has recruited doctors, rabbis, the media, and the masses to harangue people who don’t want to get injected with a new drug. We are being called the worst sort of names. We are being told that we believe in crazy conspiracies, that we are against science, that we are selfish, that we are murderers, that we don’t care about the elderly, that it’s our fault that the government continues to impose draconian restrictions on the public. It’s all because we don’t want to get injected with an experimental treatment, no questions asked. We are even being told that we have a religious obligation to do this, and that we are grave sinners if we do not. They say that if we do not agree to get injected, we should be forced to stay inside our homes forever and be ostracized from public life.
This is horrific, disgusting, a perversion of common sense, morality, and the Torah. It makes me recoil, and only further cements my distrust of these people and my opposition to taking their experimental drug. How dare they?
I know of many people who got injected, but none of them studied the science in depth, carefully weighed the potential benefits against the risks, compared this option to other alternatives, was truly informed, and decided this medical treatment was the best option for them. On the contrary, they got injected because of the hype, the propaganda, the pressure, the fear, blind trust in what “the majority of experts” supposedly believed (assuming THEY all studied everything in depth and were completely objective, which is highly dubious), blind trust in what certain influential rabbis urged them to do (ditto the above), or hysterical fear that the only option was getting injected or getting seriously ill from the virus. When I see mass hysteria and cult-like behavior surrounding a medical treatment, I will be extremely suspicious and avoid it.
The drug companies have a long and glorious history of causing mass carnage with wonder drugs they thrust on unsuspecting populations, even after serious problems had already become known. Instead of pressing the pause button and halting the marketing of these drugs until these issues could be properly investigated, the drug companies did everything in their power to suppress the information and keep pushing their products. When companies and people have demonstrated such gross lack of concern for human life, I will not trust them when they hype a new wonder drug. This isn’t our first rodeo.
Indeed, the horror stories are already coming in at warp speed, but the politicians are not the least bit concerned, the medical establishment is brushing them aside as unrelated or negligible, the media is ignoring it, the drug companies are steaming ahead at full speed, and those who raise a red flag continue to be bullied, censored, and punished. Clearly my life and my wellbeing are not their primary concern. I will not be their next guinea pig in their laboratory. I will not risk being the next “coincidence”.
Although many people have died shortly after getting injected — including perfectly healthy young people — we are not allowed to imply that the injection had anything to do with it. Somehow this is anti-science and will cause more people to die. I believe that denying any possible link, abusing people who speculate that there might be a link, and demonstrating not the slightest curiosity to even explore if there might be a link is what is anti-science and could very well cause more people to die. These same people believe I am obligated to get injected as well. No freaking thanks.
I am repulsed by the religious, cult-like worship of a pharmaceutical product, and will not participate in this ritual.
My “healthcare” provider keeps badgering me to get injected, yet they have provided me no information on this treatment or any possible alternatives.Everything I know I learned from others outside the establishment. Informed consent has become conformed consent. I decline.
I see all the lies, corruption, propaganda, manipulation, censorship, bullying, violation of medical ethics, lack of integrity in the scientific process, suppression of inconvenient adverse reactions, dismissal of legitimate concerns, hysteria, cult-like behavior, ignorance, closed-mindedness, fear, medical and political tyranny, concealment of protocols, lack of true concern for human life, lack of respect for basic human rights and freedoms, perversion of the Torah and common sense, demonization of good people, the greatest medical experiment of all time being conducted by greedy, untrustworthy, godless people, the lack of liability for those who demand I risk everything… I see all this and I have decided they can all have my place in line. I will put my trust in God. I will use the mind He blessed me with and trust my natural instincts.
Which leads to the final reason which sums up why I will not get “vaccinated.”
- The Whole thing Stinks.
The original article is on https://chananyaweissman.com/
(Click on Articles, then under “NEW The Redemption Process” click on article number 65)
California woman first to face federal charges over fake COVID immunizations, vaccination cards
And so it begins. People making fake documents and then getting prosecuted. What do you think? Going to try and force the vaccines, this may become more common. However, the women in this story was also selling a immunity pellets to Covid-19, which caught people's attention.
RE: Vaccines to become "Mandatory" to live a normal life - Get your Vaccine Passport here!
@fightforfreedom Yes the new program will be for anything. All they have to do is say public health emergency - new variants of the virus, anything to get more and more vaccines into people. As people get used to it, they will sign up for multiple vaccines a year. But what is the end goal?
Latest posts made by notmyarm
Interesting video: Embalmed finds odd blood clotting
Take a look and see what you think
RE: WIFE OF VACCINE-INJURED FIREFIGHTER SENDS AN EMOTIONAL THANK YOU TO THE TRUCKERS HEADING TO CANADA
@republic4npower sadly it's only going to get worse.
Interesting paper on the damage mRNA vaccines could be causing
Could cancers be getting worse? Lots of people say their cancer go worse after the vax. This paper looks like it
WIFE OF VACCINE-INJURED FIREFIGHTER SENDS AN EMOTIONAL THANK YOU TO THE TRUCKERS HEADING TO CANADA
This guy had heart issues from the vaccine - his heart was damaged. Will they give exemption for the next shot or job? NO WAY
Health Officials Deny Even a Single Death From COVID Shots (Mercola.com)
-As of January 7, 2022, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) has received 9,936 reports of death following the COVID jab in the U.S. When you include foreign reports received by VAERS, the death toll stands at 21,745
-A total of 1,541 miscarriages have also been reported post-jab in the U.S., or 3,594 if you include foreign reports. Despite these shocking statistics, U.S. health officials and “fact checkers” insist not a single death can be attributed to the shots
-According to OneAmerica, a national life insurance company, in the third quarter of 2021, working age Americans (aged 18 to 64) died at a rate that is 40% higher than the prepandemic rate, and they didn’t die from COVID
-The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India also reports a 41% rise in death claims in 2021, and teens’ mortality in the U.K. shot up 47% in the three months after they became eligible for COVID shots
-A recent histopathologic analysis of the organs from 15 patients who died within seven days to six months’ post-jab, ages 28 to 95, found 14 of the deaths — 93% — were caused by the jab
As of January 7, 2022, just over a year into the campaign to inject every human being with a gene transfer product to protect against COVID, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) has received 9,936 reports of death following the COVID jab in the United States’ territories alone.1 When you include foreign reports received by VAERS, the death toll stands at 21,745.
A total of 1,541 miscarriages have also been reported post-jab in the U.S., or 3,594 if you include foreign reports. Despite these shocking statistics, U.S. health officials and “fact checkers” insist not a single death can be attributed to the shots.
During an early January 2022 Senate committee hearing on the nation’s Omicron response (see video above), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, and director for the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Dr. Anthony Fauci, testified — under oath — that they “did not know” how many deaths had been reported to VAERS following COVID “vaccination.”2,3
Walensky referred to the shots as “incredibly safe,” claiming — against all science — that they “protect us against Omicron, they protect us against Delta, they protect us against COVID.” She also falsely claimed that all reported COVID-19 vaccine deaths have been “adjudicated.”
No, VAERS Is Not a Repository of Fake Reports
Worse yet, both Walensky and Fauci claim any and all adverse events following vaccination get reported to VAERS, including accidental deaths and car accidents. They both actually claim that if a person gets the COVID shot and gets hit by a car afterward, that is reported as an adverse reaction.
Nothing could be further from the truth. First of all, adverse events are not automatically reported and, certainly, obvious accidents are not entered into the system as a suspected vaccine side effect.
As reported by Health Impact News,4 there are about 18 reports in VAERS that include “road traffic accident,” but most if not all relate to an adverse event, such as a heart attack, occurring while driving. They were not hit by someone else and entered into the system. As noted by Pam Long in a January 12, 2022, Twitter thread:5
“If anyone in public health utters ‘a person can get hit by a car & report their death to VAERS’ you need stop them, in any public meeting, and demand they explain what motive would a physician have to inflate VAERS reports with car accidents or any unrelated mortality?
Despite Walensky’s & Fauci’s cliché testimony to Congress. Not one person ‘got hit by a car’ & reported their own death to VAERS as a vaccine injury. Most reports are filed by medical professionals, using diagnostic language about drug reactions.”
VAERS was designed and created as an early warning system. It’s true that anyone can file a report, but it’s time-consuming, requires the knowledge of medical details a patient oftentimes won’t have, and carries penalties for filing a false report. There’s absolutely no reason to suspect, let alone assume, that people are filing false reports just to make the shots look bad.
Fact Checker Outs Himself as a Pharma Propagandist
Walensky and Fauci aren’t the only ones lying about the lethality of the COVID jab. Mainstream media are all-in as well. In a USA Today fact check,6 Daniel Funke claims that “COVID-19 vaccines [are] safe for children” and “not linked to deaths.”
“... online, some claim children face more risk from the vaccine than COVID-19 itself,” Funke writes. “USA TODAY previously rated False a claim that children are 50 times more likely to die from the COVID-19 vaccine than the virus. This claim is similarly wrong.
Public health officials say the vaccine from Pfizer-BioNTech is safe and effective at preventing COVID-19 in children ages 5-11. As other independent fact-checking organizations have reported, the benefits of the vaccine outweigh its known and potential risks.
‘Over 700 children have died due to COVID-19 in the United States,’ Dr. Sonja Rasmussen, a professor in the departments of pediatrics and epidemiology at the University of Florida, said in an email.
‘I am not aware of any deaths in children that have been attributed to the COVID-19 vaccine’ ... The benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine for children outweigh its known and potential risks, according to the CDC. The shot does not cause death.”
Funke cites data from Pfizer’s clinical trials, “which found the vaccine was safe” for children, as “no deaths were reported” in Pfizer’s trials for 12- to 25-year-olds, and those for 12- to 17-year-olds. Funke dismisses the rationale for looking at VAERS data on the basis that anyone can file a report and that reports are unverified, and therefore cannot be used to determine causation.
All Opinion and No Data
There are so many issues with this “fact-check,” no wonder Facebook attorneys are using the legal defense that fact checks are “opinion” only and not actual assertions of fact.7,8 There’s nothing but opinions in this piece. As “evidence” that the COVID shots are safe and have caused no deaths, Funke presents:
Another opinion piece by USA Today
The supposed opinion of unnamed “public health officials”
Biased opinion assertions by other pharma-funded propaganda organizations (aka, “fact checking organizations”)
The opinion of a single professor who admits she is unaware of publicly available data
The unsupported opinion of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a captured agency that has repeatedly been caught manipulating data and changing definitions to fit the pandemic narrative
Pfizer’s preliminary trial data, which whistleblowers warn may have integrity issues9
The unsupported claim that VAERS data are unreliable because anyone can file, the implication being that people can file fake reports
The debatable claim that VAERS data cannot tell us anything about causation, hence it’s useless looking at it
It’s hard to come up with a less compelling list of evidences for safety, but then again, propagandists have to work with what they have, and in this case, they have nothing. Funke presents zero actual data to support his opinion.
Explain the Rise in Mortality if You Can
There are many data-driven reasons to suspect, predict and even assume that the COVID shots are killing more people than they’re saving — regardless of the age group in question. It would take an entire book to cover it all, so I will only review a few of those reasons here.
One very telling clue that recently came to light is life insurance data. According to OneAmerica, a national life insurance company based in Indianapolis, in the third quarter of 2021, working-age Americans (aged 18 to 64) died at a rate that is 40% higher than the prepandemic rate, and they didn’t die from COVID.10
And, according to CEO Scott Davidson, this catastrophic abnormality is consistently seen “across every player” in the life insurance industry.11 A 40% increase in mortality is simply unheard of, and as of yet, they claim to have no clue as to what’s causing young and middle-aged people to die prematurely at such an astounding rate.
Looking at it from a sleuth’s point of view, one might ask, “What environmental factor with unknown safety was introduced in 2021 to people in this age group?” Sure, pandemic restrictions have led to spikes in drug overdoses and suicides, which affects this cohort in particular. But “deaths of desperation” cannot account for all of it.
The one wild card is the COVID jab. More than 173 million working-age Americans (18 to 64) got these experimental gene transfer injections,12 and doctors and scientists have elucidated several mechanisms by which they might injure or kill.
What’s more, the rise in deaths began AFTER the rollout of the shots, and whatever the causative factor, it is not only national but likely international in scope. The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India, for example, also reports a 41% rise in death claims in 2021.13
Excess deaths (exceeding prepandemic norms) are also reported in the U.K.14 Among teens (aged 15 to 19), mortality spiked right after teens became eligible for the COVID shot.15 Between the week ending June 26 and the week ending September 18, 2020, and that same period of time in 2021, teenage deaths rose by 47%.16
A rise in disability claims17 also suggests that many who aren’t killed by this novel lethal threat are seriously injured, often long-term. For all of these reasons, the COVID jabs cannot be taken off the table. Logic demands that they be looked into as a potential causative factor.
Can VAERS Data Demonstrate Causality?
One person who has taken a strong stance against the claim that VAERS data cannot tell us anything about causation is Steve Kirsch, executive director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund. In the video “Vaccine Secrets: COVID Crisis,”18 he argues that VAERS can indeed be used to determine causality.
It’s important to realize that the idea that VAERS cannot show causality is part of how and why the CDC can claim none of the deaths is attributable to the COVID shot. Kirsch argues that this premise is in fact false, and that causation can be determined using VAERS’ data.
To prove his point, Kirsch gives the following analogy: Suppose you give a two-dose vaccine. After the first dose, nothing happens, but after the second dose, people die within 24 hours of a deep vein thrombosis (DVT).
When you look at the VAERS data, what you would find is no reports associated with the first dose, and a rash of deaths after the second dose, all within the same timeframe and with the same cause of death.
According to the CDC, you cannot ascribe any causality at all from that. To them, it’s just random chance that everyone died after the second dose, and from the same condition, and not the first dose or from another condition.
Kirsch argues that causality can indeed be identified from this kind of data. It’s very difficult to come up with another explanation for why people — many who are young, in perfect health with no predisposing conditions — die exactly 24 hours after their second dose. It’s even difficult to come up with another explanation for people who do have underlying conditions.
For example, is it reasonable to assume that people with, say, undiagnosed heart conditions, would die from DVT exactly 24 hours after getting a second dose of vaccine? Or that people with undiagnosed diabetes would die from DVT exactly 24 hours after their second dose?
Why not after the first dose, or two months after the second dose, or any other random number of hours or days, or for other random cause of death? Why would people randomly die of the same condition at the exact same time, over and over again?
At bare minimum, as an early warning system, VAERS is designed to flag potential causation. It’s by looking for repeated patterns of side effects that you would begin to identify a potentially problematic vaccine. Once a pattern is identified — and there’s no denying death within 24 hours to one week is a pattern seen for the COVID shots — an investigation should be launched.
But no such investigation has been launched for the COVID jabs. Clear-cut patterns are simply ignored. As an early warning system, VAERS is performing as intended, despite severe underreporting (the CDC recently published a paper in which they admit COVID jab adverse effects in children are underreported by a factor of 6.519). It’s the follow-up that’s lacking. But lack of investigation and follow-up is not evidence that the shots can’t cause death.
‘Bad Batches’ Are Another Clue
Another clue that hints at SOME of the shots being able to cause rapid death is the “bad batch” phenomenon. Independent investigations have revealed that some lots of the shots are associated with very severe side effects and death, whereas other lots have no adverse events associated with their use.
According to howbadismybatch.com, a site that matches up vaccine lot codes with reports in the VAERS system, approximately 5% of the lots are responsible for 90% of all adverse reactions. Some of these batches have 50 times the number of deaths and disabilities associated with them, compared to other lots.20
Another website that basically does the same thing is TheEagle’s VAERS Dashboard. (A video explaining how to use the dashboard can be found on Bitchute.21)
According to Fuellmich and Wodarg, this lot-dependent data shows vaccine makers are conducting secret experiments within the larger public trial. They appear to actually be doing lethal-dose testing on the public.
Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, cofounder of the German Corona Investigative Committee, and Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, a former member of the German parliament, discuss this “smoking gun” evidence in the video above. According to Fuellmich and Wodarg, this lot-dependent data shows vaccine makers are conducting secret experiments within the larger public trial.
They appear to actually be doing lethal-dose testing on the public. Wodarg argues that the evidence for this is very clear from the data. They also appear to be coordinating these lethal-dose experiments, so that they’re not all releasing their most toxic lots at the same time, or in the same areas, so as to avoid detection through clustering.
More Data Showing COVID Jabs Can Kill
In closing, I will raise just two more pieces of evidence that speaks to COVID jabs having the ability to kill large numbers of people:
•A recent histopathologic analysis of the organs from 15 patients who died within seven days to six months’ post-jab, ages 28 to 95, found 14 of the deaths — 93% — were caused by the jab.22,23 None of the original coroners’ reports implicated the shots, however.
The association was only established through autopsy, which revealed a “process of immunological self-attack” that is “without precedent.” “Because vaccination was the single common denominator between all cases, there can be no doubt that it was the trigger of self-destruction in these deceased individuals,” Drs. Sucharit Bhakdi and Arne Burkhardt wrote.
•According to researchers at Columbia University, the real number of people killed by the COVID jabs is about 20 times the reported rate, based on their analysis of two publicly available databases (VAERS in the U.S., and another in Europe).24,25,26 That analysis was published in October 2021, but few ever heard a peep about it. According to the authors:
“Comparing our age-stratified VFRs [vaccine-induced fatality rates] with published age-stratified coronavirus infection fatality rates (IFR) suggests the risks of COVID vaccines and boosters outweigh the benefits in children, young adults and older adults with low occupational risk or previous coronavirus exposure.
We discuss implications for public health policies related to boosters, school and workplace mandates, and the urgent need to identify, develop and disseminate diagnostics and treatments for life-altering vaccine injuries.”
Based on the ever-mounting data, the claim that COVID shots have not, cannot, and/or will not cause death simply isn’t credible. And the longer these shots continue to be used, the greater the likelihood that they will indeed kill far more than the actual virus ever did. We also need to remember that the disabilities and long-term chronic ill health these shots are causing will prematurely kill many more, even if it takes 10 or 15 years, and we have no data on any of that yet.
1 OpenVAERS Data through January 7, 2022, US territories selected
2 BitChute “Walensky and Fauci Lie Under Oath” January 13, 2022
3, 4 Health Impact News January 13, 2022
5 Twitter Pam Long January 12, 2022
6 USA Today December 2, 2021
7 wattsupwiththat.com John Stossel Lawsuit against Meta Platforms (PDF)
8 WND December 10, 2021
9 The BMJ 2021;375:n2635
10, 11, 17 The Center Square January 1, 2022
12 USA Facts Coronavirus Vaccine Tracker, Percentage of people in each age range received the COVID vaccine
13 Fortune India December 30, 2021
14 Financial Times November 23, 2021
15, 16 The Exposé September 30, 2021
18 Lew Rockwell October 11, 2021
19 Steve Kirsch Substack January 6, 2022
20 Robert Malone Substack January 13, 2022
21 Bitchute December 29, 2021
22 Doctors4CovidEthics, On COVID Vaccines
23 Steve Kirsch Substack December 28, 2021
24 ResearchGate October 2021 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28257.43366
25 WND December 15, 2021
26 Newstarget December 27, 2021
The Scientific Misconduct Story Behind Ivermectin (Mercola.com)
-In mid-February 2021, Dr. Andrew Hill at Liverpool University published a scientific meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials involving the use of ivermectin. The review, funded by the World Health Organization and UNITAID, found the drug increased viral clearance and reduced COVID-19 deaths by 75%, yet the conclusion of the paper was dismissive
-In early April 2021, Hill was accused of scientific misconduct by the French civic group, Association BonSens. BonSens claims Hill manipulated data to downplay the usefulness of ivermectin. Hill admitted that the study sponsor had crafted the conclusion
-In early August 2021, Hill published a public notice stating one of the six studies included in his analysis had been withdrawn due to fraudulent data. A revised analysis excluding that study was published in November 2021
-In the November revision, Hill included 23 randomized clinical trials, concluding ivermectin had no statistically significant effect on survival or hospitalizations
-Other meta-analyses of 13 to 24 studies have found reductions in death ranging from 62% to 91%. Recent research has also found a five-day course of ivermectin at a dose of 12 mg per day sped up viral clearance, reducing the duration of symptomatic illness by three days compared to placebo (9.7 days versus 12.7 days)
In mid-February 2021, Dr. Andrew Hill at Liverpool University published a scientific meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials involving the use of ivermectin in 1,255 COVID-19 patients. (The paper was initially posted on a preprint server.)
The review, which was funded by the World Health Organization and UNITAID, found that ivermectin increased viral clearance and reduced COVID-19 deaths by 75%. This is a rather massive benefit, yet the conclusion of the paper was dismissive, saying additional large clinical trials were needed to make a determination about whether or not to recommend its use.
Hill Accused of Scientific Misconduct
In early April 2021, Hill and his coauthors were accused of scientific misconduct by a French civic group called the Association BonSens. The TrialSite News video report from April 5 above reviews the details of this story. BonSens — labeled by some a “controversial group” based on its anti-mask mandate stance — accused Hill of data manipulation to downplay the usefulness of ivermectin.
According to BonSens, Hill’s analysis was then used by the WHO to recommend against ivermectin, even though it appears to have significant benefit. BonSens called on Hill to retract the paper, but Hill remained “resolute and stands behind the study,” TrialSite News said.
At the time, TrialSite News claimed to have been in conversation with “relevant and associated parties,” some of whom have asked to remain anonymous, who say Hill’s study was in fact modified, but that this was done “separate and apart from the investigator,” and that Hill had no say in the matter.
However, since then, one of the six studies Hill included in his analysis has been withdrawn “due to fraudulent data.” In a public notice1 dated August 9, 2021, Hill and his coauthors addressed the matter, saying they would submit “a revised version excluding this study, and the currently posted paper will be retracted.” A revised and updated meta-analysis was published in November 2021.2
The updated review includes data from 23 randomized clinical trials with a total of 3,349 patients. Studies with “high risk of bias” were excluded. In this analysis, Hill found that “Ivermectin did not show a statistically significant effect on survival or hospitalizations,” and had only “borderline significant effect on duration of hospitalization in comparison with standard of care.”
No significant effect on clinical recovery time was detected. In conclusion, the paper states that the WHO “recommends the use of ivermectin only inside clinical trials.” Curiously, it also states that “a network of large clinical trials is in progress to validate the results seen to date.” What results might those be? Surely, they must be referring to positive results, or else a network of clinical trials would hardly be justified.
Positive Ivermectin Studies Largely Barred From Publication
December 3, 2021, TrialSite News interviewed Dr. Tess Lawrie (above) about her own ivermectin analyses and that of Hill. She points out that she was concerned when she saw the initial meta-analysis Hill published, as the conclusion didn’t match the data. The reduction in death was significant, yet the conclusion was dismissive.
Lawrie contacted Hill, asking him to explain his conclusion to her. He then told her that the conclusion of the paper was not his own. It had been written by his sponsor — the WHO. Lawrie was shocked, she said, as this struck her as a clear conflict of interest.
In the interview, Lawrie also discusses the general difficulty researchers have had, since the beginning, in getting papers published that support ivermectin. She admits her own team has downplayed the benefits by using extremely conservative analyses in an effort to get published.
“It seems, if you tell it like it is, you are not going to get published because you might be accused of overstating your case. And if you understate it, you’re told there’s not enough evidence,” Lawrie says.
Strong Evidence for Ivermectin
According to Lawrie, the evidence for ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19 is strong. In a previous interview, she reviewed a 13-study meta-analysis that found a 68% reduction in deaths. A follow-up review that included 15 studies found a 62% to 72% reduction in deaths.3
A five-day course of ivermectin at a dose of 12 mg per day sped up viral clearance, reducing the duration of symptomatic illness by three days compared to placebo (9.7 days versus 12.7 days).
A meta-analysis4 by Lawrie and her team published in the July-August 2021 issue of the American Journal of Therapeutics, which included 24 randomized controlled trials with a total of 3,406 participants, reported reductions in death ranging between 79% and 91%.
A study published February 2021 also reported that a five-day course of ivermectin at a dose of 12 mg per day sped up viral clearance, reducing the duration of symptomatic illness by three days compared to placebo (9.7 days versus 12.7 days).5
According to Lawrie, what makes ivermectin particularly useful in COVID-19 is that it works both in the initial viral phase of the illness, when antivirals are required, and in the later inflammatory stage, when the viral load drops off and anti-inflammatories become necessary.
Dr. Surya Kant, a medical doctor in India who has written a white paper6 on ivermectin, claims the drug reduces replication of the SARS-CoV-2 virus by several thousand times.7 Kant’s paper led several Indian provinces to start using ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and as treatment for COVID-19 in the summer of 2020.8
Africa and Japan Defy the Odds With Ivermectin
Japan and Africa have also defied the odds with ivermectin. As reported by NewsRescue at the end of August 2021, “Melinda Gates, co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation predicted disaster in the developing world, but so far she has been dead wrong, at least as far as Africa is concerned.”9
Indeed, despite having nearly 1.4 billion people, Africa has maintained one of the lowest COVID caseloads and death rates in the world, accounting for just 4% of the global reported death rate as of mid-May 2021.10 While media feign confusion, ivermectin may well be the explanation for this phenomenon.
A study11 published at the end of December 2020 found that African countries that participated in the African Program for Onchocerciasis Control (APOC), where intensive ivermectin mass campaigns were carried out between 1995 and 2015, had 28% lower COVID-19 mortality and 8% lower infection rates than non-APOC countries that did not participate in the ivermectin campaign.
“That a mass public health preventive campaign against COVID-19 may have taken place, inadvertently, in some African countries with massive community ivermectin use is an attractive hypothesis,” the authors said.12
Similarly, Japan has seen a massive decline in cases after adopting ivermectin as standard treatment against COVID. November 3, 2021, Free West Media reported:13
“The head of the Tokyo Medical Association appeared on national television in September urging doctors to use Ivermectin and they listened. A little over a month later, COVID-19 is under control in Japan ...
Japan had slavishly adhered to all the Big Pharma prescriptions, including quarantine, contact tracing, masking, social distance, but finally the pandemic had hit them hard after they started aggressive vaccination in May 2021.
The results looked good initially, but in mid-July they started rising again and on August 6 cases hit a new all-time high and continued to rise.
Ivermectin was allowed as a treatment on August 13 and after 2 weeks the cases started to come down. In fact, they are now down 99% from the peak ... In Japan, doctors can now prescribe it without restrictions, and people can buy it legally from India.”
Doctors Urge Acceptance of Ivermectin to Save Lives
In the U.S., the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) has been calling for widespread adoption of ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and for the treatment of all phases of COVID-19.14,15
FLCCC president Dr. Pierre Kory, former professor of medicine at St. Luke’s Aurora Medical Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, has testified to the benefits of ivermectin before a number of COVID-19 panels, including the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in December 2020,16 and the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel January 6, 2021.17 As noted by the FLCCC:18
“The data shows the ability of the drug Ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, to keep those with early symptoms from progressing to the hyper-inflammatory phase of the disease, and even to help critically ill patients recover.
Dr. Kory testified that Ivermectin is effectively a ‘miracle drug’ against COVID-19 and called upon the government’s medical authorities … to urgently review the latest data and then issue guidelines for physicians, nurse-practitioners, and physician assistants to prescribe Ivermectin for COVID-1919 …
… numerous clinical studies — including peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials — showed large magnitude benefits of Ivermectin in prophylaxis, early treatment and also in late-stage disease. Taken together … dozens of clinical trials that have now emerged from around the world are substantial enough to reliably assess clinical efficacy.”20
A one-page summary21 of the clinical trial evidence for Ivermectin can be downloaded from the FLCCC website. A more comprehensive, 31-page review22 of trials data has been published in the journal Frontiers of Pharmacology.
At the time of this writing, the number of trials involving ivermectin has risen to 71, including 31 randomized controlled trials. A listing of all the ivermectin trials done to date, with links to the published studies, can be found on c19Ivermectin.com.23
The FLCCC’s COVID-19 protocol was initially dubbed MATH+ (an acronym based on the key components of the treatment), but after several tweaks and updates, the prophylaxis and early outpatient treatment protocol is now known as I-MASK+24 while the hospital treatment has been renamed I-MATH+,25 due to the addition of ivermectin.
The two protocols26,27 are available for download on the FLCCC Alliance website in multiple languages.
Take Control of Your Health Care
If COVID-19 were an actual medical crisis and not an excuse for a tyrannical power grab, doctors would have been allowed, indeed encouraged, to work together to find solutions. Their successes would then have been announced everywhere. Without doubt, ivermectin would have featured heavily in such reports, as doctors around the world have attested to its benefits.
That’s not what happened, though, which tells us we’re not dealing with a medical crisis that governments actually want to solve. As reported by the FLCCC, its members have “been blocked in attempts to disseminate scientific information about ivermectin on Facebook and other social media with the FLCCC’s pages repeatedly being shut down.”28
Seasoned researchers like Lawrie can’t get their research published, and the main thing they have in common is that they’re reporting positive results using ivermectin (and other common remedies). For nearly two years now, doctors and scientist have repeatedly shown we can control the COVID endemic, even with new variants. We can save the vast majority from severe illness and death.
Yet “authorities” within government, regulatory agencies and health agencies have refused to listen and insist there’s only one way forward — we need novel gene transfer injections that direct our cells to churn out the very toxin that makes COVID-19 so problematic. And when those shots are proven failures, the answer, these same “leaders” say, is more boosters!
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. The good news is you can choose who you listen to. You can listen to frontline medical experts, like the FLCCC, and follow their advice.
1 Open Forum Infectious Diseases August 9, 2021; 8(8): ofab394
2 Open Forum Infectious Diseases November 2021; 8(11): ofab358
3 YouTube Ivermectin Discussion with Dr. Tess Laurie April 7, 2021
4 American Journal of Therapeutics July/August 2021; 28(4): e434-e460
5 International Journal of Infectious Diseases February 2021; 103: 214-216
6 Indian Journal of Tuberculosis July 2020; 67(3): 448-451
7 Antiviral Research June 2020; 178: 104787
8 Financial Express April 14, 2021
9, 10 NewsRescue August 31, 2021
11, 12 Colomb Med (Cali) December 30, 2020; 51(4): e2014613
13 Free West Media November 3, 2021
14, 16, 19 FLCCC December 8, 2020
15 Medpage Today January 6, 2021
17 FLCCC January 7, 2021 Press Release (PDF)
18, 28 Newswise December 8, 2020
20 FLCCC January 7, 2020 Press Release (PDF)
21 FLCCC Summary of Clinical Trials Evidence for Ivermectin in COVID-19 (PDF)
22 Frontiers of Pharmacology 2020 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2021.643369
24, 26 FLCCC Alliance I-MASK+ Protocol
25, 27 FLCCC MATH+ Hospital Protocol
RE: 3 Friends have died - all under 50
@republic4npower sadly for a lot of people the decline will be slow and tragic. But I do expect no covid deaths to keep rising each year. They will of course do everything to write them off as normal health and death issues.
RE: 3 Friends have died - all under 50
@fightforfreedom Sorry for the late reply and sorry you had 3 friends that died. Unfortunately, I suspect as time goes on a lot more people will die from complications of these shots. It really is a crime against Humanity.